Headlines

In a long, emotional interview with The Daily Beast, she accused Clinton of intentionally lying about her in court documents, going to extraordinary lengths to discredit evidence of the rape, and later callously acknowledging and laughing about her attackers’ guilt on the recordings.

“Hillary Clinton took me through Hell,” the victim said. The Daily Beast agreed to withhold her name out of concern for her privacy as a victim of sexual assault.

The victim said if she saw Clinton today, she would call her out for what she sees as the hypocrisy of Clinton’s current campaign to fight for women’s rights compared to her actions regarding this rape case so long ago.

“I would say [to Clinton], ‘You took a case of mine in ‘75, you lied on me… I realize the truth now, the heart of what you’ve done to me. And you are supposed to be for women? You call that [being] for women, what you done to me? And I hear you on tape laughing.”

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Hillary won’t say it directly, but you can bet her supporters will be angrily attacking the victim before lunchtime today, trying to out her name and basically telling her to shut up and put some ice on it, in the tradition of how Bill dealt with Juanita Broaddrick.

* She’ll be hit by a train walking on train tracks
* Found “suicided” in a park with her hand holding the gun in an impossible configuration
* She’ll be killed in a dicey hold-up at Starbucks
* Killed crossing the street
* She’s about to get some ejaculate on her blue clothes and mocked for eternity

Eni mini miny moe…..You pick a cause of death/personal destruction like the many of those surrounding the Clintons.

This is something many rape victims say. The problem is that it isn’t a reasonable complaint if you’re accusing someone of a felony.

Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Which means she’s not a rape victim and he’s not a rapist until you proved it in court.

Till then, she’s just making an accusation.

Which means until she or her attorney has proven that her allegation is valid… he has every right to be defended by a lawyer that will grill the accuser, their evidence, whatever witnesses they have, etc just as you’d hope any innocent man or women would be able to do.

Look, I don’t like Hillery either. I think she’s just another politician that wants to be in power for its own sake. I don’t think she actually wants to do anything or sees herself as being someone that will do anything useful. I think being president is on her bucket list. And that’s about it.

So she’s going to say and do whatever she can to get elected… and once there she’s going to say and do whatever she has to do to keep her special interests happy. Anyone that will give her power, influence, political stability… she’ll probably just say yes.

Indifferent to whether you’re right or left on the political spectrum that’s a politician you run into pretty frequently. They just want to be in politics and sit at the biggest table possible.

And I wouldn’t care except for these bozos supposedly have the right to order me around… so I’d just assume we have someone in power… right or left… that at least had an idea of what they wanted to do and was running to do that thing.

Those that simply want power? They’re a liability. Because instead of dealing with the president what you’re actually dealing with are a dozen to a hundred of so unelected lobbying interests that will ultimately be in power. They’ll say I want “X and I’ll give you Y”, the administration says “I like X and don’t care about Y, so deal”… and there you go… shake and bake oligarchy. Ruled by some unelected elite pulling the strings of the twit that just wants to sit in the chair and pretend to be in charge.

Obama for all his supposed intellectualism has done much of this sort of thing. He abdicates many issues… and then when they blow up he sends the order down the pipe to cover everyone’s backside so all the investigators can do is fume.

I’m tired of it… I’d like to have someone run… Even a democrat… that at least had an idea of what they wanted to do and understood the job they were applying for… Just saying stupid things like “peace in the middle east” or “smart diplomacy”… that’s not a real strategy or really even a real thought. And that’s typically the level of boiler plate we get in presidential debates and campaign literature. Its vapid nonsense.

Possibly politicians suffer from the same disease some of the tv networks suffer from… an acute conviction that everyone else is too stupid to understand anything over an 8th grade level. I grant there are a disturbing number of people that fit that description but that doesn’t mean you should dumb down literally everything you say publicly to that level. It frankly either makes you sound evasive or ignorant to any that can string two thoughts together without getting confused.

And those are not attractive qualities in someone you’d elect to leader of the free world.

I don’t like Hillary. I don’t support Hillary! However, all you true sunshine patriots that think she did something wrong in defending her client have forgotten that was her job, and she evidently did it well. What do you folks want, a defense attorney that doesn’t defend people who you think are guilty? Sheesh! what a bunch of Americans. This whole piece is a hatchet job from the “good” guys.

I don’t like Hillary. I don’t support Hillary! However, all you true sunshine patriots that think she did something wrong in defending her client have forgotten that was her job, and she evidently did it well. What do you folks want, a defense attorney that doesn’t defend people who you think are guilty? Sheesh! what a bunch of Americans. This whole piece is a hatchet job from the “good” guys.

Old Country Boy on June 20, 2014 at 9:17 AM

When I pick a candidate for a powerful political office, I never pick one who chose to be a defense attorney.

I don’t want a President who deliberately chose a line of work where he or she was required by law and by ethics and by morality to fight to get vicious criminals released onto the street even when they knew the animal did it.

Defense attorneys are great. We need them. We don’t need them to be our President. Keep that kind of adversarial thinking in the courtroom. Keep it out of the Oval Office, and keep it out of Congress.

However, all you true sunshine patriots that think she did something wrong in defending her client have forgotten that was her job, and she evidently did it well. What do you folks want, a defense attorney that doesn’t defend people who you think are guilty? Sheesh! what a bunch of Americans. This whole piece is a hatchet job from the “good” guys.

Old Country Boy on June 20, 2014 at 9:17 AM

When I pick a candidate for a powerful political office, I never pick one who chose to be a defense attorney.

I don’t want a President who deliberately chose a line of work where he or she was required by law and by ethics and by morality to fight to get vicious criminals released onto the street even when they knew the animal did it.

Defense attorneys are great. We need them. We don’t need them to be our President. Keep that kind of adversarial thinking in the courtroom. Keep it out of the Oval Office, and keep it out of Congress.

fadetogray on June 20, 2014 at 9:51 AM

I actually agree with both of these comments. I don’t begrudge Hillary for working as defense counsel in a criminal case as an attorney. However, it takes a certain kind of disposition to be able to do that, and I would not support someone for political office that made their living doing that (if they took a few cases over the years – that’s a different story).

I feel, for the most part, the same about most plaintiff’s attorneys. In order to make a living as plaintiff’s counsel, you have to be willing to take cases you know are b.s. and sue them out and cost people money and heartache. (again, there is a difference between an attorney that handles a few plaintiff’s cases a year as part of their practice and someone that does nothing but plaintiff’s work).

If you are, for instance, an employment discrimination plaintiff’s counsel, you sue out cases you know to be nonsense, call other people racists or sexists and make all kinds of allegations, cost employers money, time and effort, all to make your own living.

I know plaintiff’s attorneys think of themselves as white knights fighting for the little guy, but that is only true in about 5% of cases, tops. the remainder are nuisance-value lawsuits at best.

that is why more than 50% of cases brought are dismissed either on motions to dismiss or summary judgment motions.